Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:06:41 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks |
| |
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > Sorry, but in this case you have got a lot more variables than you > > seem to think. The obvious lock is the ext2 superblock lock, but > > there are side cases with quota and O_SYNC which are much less > > commonly triggered. That's not even starting to consider the other > > dozens of filesystems in the kernel which have to be audited if we > > change the locking requirements for GFP calls. > > i'd suggest to simply BUG() in schedule() if the superblock lock is held > not directly by lock_super. Holding the superblock lock is IMO quite rude > anyway (for performance and latency) - is there any place where we hold it > for a long time and it's unavoidable?
Ingo, schedule() has no bloody business _knowing_ about superblock locks in the first place. Yes, ext2 should not bother taking it at all. For completely unrelated reasons.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |